Flora and Conservation Issues in Two Protected Areas in Palestine: Wadi Al-Zarqa Al-Ulwi and Wadi Qana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent wok on neglected issue related to biodiversity and threats affecting protected areas in the Palestinian area.

It includes vital data on the biodiversity as well as identifying major threats  facing the biodiversity of Palestine. It is presented in smooth manar with  examples and high quality images.

I marked few things in comment format that should be corrected and amended.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This reviewer only made a general positive comment about the manuscript. We did not see any specific comments in the review. The text below says they marked somethings in comment directly on the text but we do not see an accompanying text other than a very brief positive comment in the file attached labeled peer-review-25100124.v1.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript: Flora and conservation issues in two protected areas in Palestine: Wadi Al-Zarqa Al-Ulwi and Wadi Qana

 

Major comments

In Materials and Methods there is some information that belongs in the introduction, but for example not the identification literature used. For example, one would like to know which taxonomic treatment was used for the determination of the Ophrys species. Ophrys palaestina is certainly not accepted by everyone, while the photo of Ophrys sphegodes shows a representative of Andrena-pollinated Ophrys, but not O. sphegodes in the strict sense. Furthermore, the authors seem to repeatedly misspell numerous plant names, which casts doubt on the quality of the work.

Apart from these determination things, sentences are missed which go in the following direction: We elicited x in x and x at x and x using x, following the methodology of x to show x. The data obtained were entered into x, analyzed using x, and statistically validated using x.  The results show that.... Finally, comparisons can be made to x and discussed.

The comparisons are only between the two protected areas discussed here. In the Introduction and Discussion, one learns nothing about comparable areas that have already been better studied.

The discussion should first deal with the prepared content of the manuscript - and that is the comparison of biodiversity between the two protected areas.

Also, it is unusual to have Conclusions once over several pages (from line 253), because it usually comes across completely unprepared. Perhaps the authors could limit themselves to a few core topics (e.g. environmental justice - from line 311 + further scientific research - from line 298) and then elaborate these better as red threads.

If possible, you should leave terms like "colonial settlements" alone. The criticism of Israeli occupation should be boiled down and taken out of the Abstract altogether. So far especially the abstract is too politically motivated, which is not possible in the natural sciences. Overall, the Abstract needs more substance and at least the previous first sentence must disappear as well as "due to the Israeli colonial occupation".

 

Minor comments

Line 3: ";" ?

Line 4: It is one and the same institution, therefore no 2 should be indexed.

Line 18: Many terms are too broad for me. For example, "plant diversity" should be changed at least to "Mediterranean plant diversity".

Lines 26-32: There is even redundant criticism of Israel; this needs to be reduced to much shorter and less political.

Lines 36-37: At least attenuate, e.g. "… are believed to have been ..."

Lines 47-48: "We selected two protected areas in the north for detailed floral study to help conservation efforts" à Could it be phrased a little more directly and neutrally, for example as "to provide a basis of knowledge for conservation efforts"?

Lines 54-55: à Useful lessons may be learned from the data presented for plant (OR vegetation?) conservation in vulnerable areas of the Mediterranean.

Materials and Methods

Line 64: seven each in WQ and WZ

Line 68 following: What kind of project is it? I can't find any prefixed info for the reference included here.

Line 72: Even if they are standard techniques, what has been done must be presented here independently. A reader must be able to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative effort.

Results

Lines 82-83: Based on the punctuation errors in the plant name listing, one can assume it was just quickly copied in.

Lines 92-93: 20 Km – (400-270m asl) – (120-250 m asl): Different spellings in a very small space. This does not make a good impression and is not acceptable! There are also unusually harsh punctuation errors before and after.

Line 106: Not every international reader knows what "the Separation wall" is.

Lines 131-132: ~àThere were 21 rare species in WZ that did not occur in WQ, 15 in WQ that did not occur in WZ, and the remaining 131(12) occurred in both locations.

Lines 151-155: Unfortunate: while the reader wonders when data will be served for deeper analysis, data come from another, unpublished study.

Lines 157-159: In general, the area also represents a reservoir of medicinal plants and spices for cultural and religious occasions, such as Ramallah.

Lines 263-265: It is not clear why this example was singled out.

Lines 270-276: A manuscript is typically structured so that this does not come as a surprise here, but is prepared in the other parts (Methods ...).

Discussion

Often the punctuation mark at the end of the sentence is missing.

Line 165: once again probably a careless mistake – "of the core area of both WZ and WZ"

Line 197: The scientific name should also be given for the animal species.

Line 208: "(Handal and Qumsiyeh 2021)" does not conform to the usual MDPI style for source citations in text.

Line 213: What are "donums"?

Line 232 following: Probably the last two paragraphs so far, starting at line 232, are the most important and should therefore be moved to the front.

Lines 254-257: It is not balanced to cite occupation as the only reason.

Line 298 following: If you take individual points and expand on them, as already suggested in the higher-level comments, this one ("further scientific research") could also refer to the utility of time-series data, and/or to elaborate where in a given area source or sink are spatially or temporally for the population of a species under consideration. For all of the above, Zaplata, Winter, Biemelt & Fischer, 2011, Flora 206:928-934 could serve you as a reference.

 

 

Figure 1:

One would like both detailed map illustrations to be sharper, at least the included labels should be re-sharpened. For the classification of the detailed areas, one would like to see a superordinate map on which one can recognize the location in the region with a little knowledge of geography. The source of the maps must be named.

 

Figures 2 + 3:

The image description is too minimalistic. It is about biotics after all, so please bring the dominant life form, etc. And what about the picture authors?

 

Figure 4:

One immediately wonders which plant species one sees blooming in the water. The partial illustrations should be brought closer together.

 

Figure 5:

Why are the plant species names not written in italics? The inscription in the partial illustrations (letters A-H) should be more legible; possibly use white font colour.

Author Response

Major comments

In Materials and Methods there is some information that belongs in the introduction, but for example not the identification literature used. For example, one would like to know which taxonomic treatment was used for the determination of the Ophrys species. Ophrys palaestina is certainly not accepted by everyone, while the photo of Ophrys sphegodes shows a representative of Andrena-pollinated Ophrys, but not O. sphegodes in the strict sense. Furthermore, the authors seem to repeatedly misspell numerous plant names, which casts doubt on the quality of the work.

We changed the description of the photos and adjusted as needed including removal of sphegodes but we think there is a lot of work to be done on orchid taxonomy here and we do have one master student who is doing her thesis on this (including via DNA phylogenies)

Apart from these determination things, sentences are missed which go in the following direction: We elicited x in x and x at x and x using x, following the methodology of x to show x. The data obtained were entered into x, analyzed using x, and statistically validated using x.  The results show that.... Finally, comparisons can be made to x and discussed.

Added on the results section and as seen in the new version, overall, the logic is much better

The comparisons are only between the two protected areas discussed here. In the Introduction and Discussion, one learns nothing about comparable areas that have already been better studied.

We agree there are other protected areas around the world that have been compared in terms of flora. xxx. But the two chosen areas in a part of the world (Palestinian areas) where such studies are non-existent.  Further we believe there are both unique aspects (like the differences in rare plants between two otherwise adjacent areas) and directly applied science (implications for protections that are included in discussion)

The discussion should first deal with the prepared content of the manuscript - and that is the comparison of biodiversity between the two protected areas.

Changed - see revised MS

Also, it is unusual to have Conclusions once over several pages (from line 253), because it usually comes across completely unprepared. Perhaps the authors could limit themselves to a few core topics (e.g. environmental justice - from line 311 + further scientific research - from line 298) and then elaborate these better as red threads.

The first paragraph and (shortened) recommendations in what was conclusion are now moved to discussion. A very short conclusion is then provided

If possible, you should leave terms like "colonial settlements" alone. The criticism of Israeli occupation should be boiled down and taken out of the Abstract altogether. So far especially the abstract is too politically motivated, which is not possible in the natural sciences. Overall, the Abstract needs more substance and at least the previous first sentence must disappear as well as "due to the Israeli colonial occupation".

Done - removed those terms

Minor comments

All were fixed in the revised manuscript as instructed by this reviewer. There was only one comment which we could not address which is in original line 151-152 "There were 21 rare species in WZ that did not occur in WQ, 15 in WQ that did not occur in WZ, and the remaining 131(12) occurred in both locations" This was not referring to data material to th epaper but data about selection of the two areas as significant in the new Protected Area Network. Unfortunately that data is proprietary and not released yet until approved by the government. We also fixed the figures as requested by this reviewer. 

We REALLY thank this reviewer who did such detailed critique as it improved the quality of the manuscript significantly.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is also very clearly structured and well-written. Overall, I do only have two major observations/comments the authors may want to consider:

1. The number of citations for this topic is too low; I am surfing on google scholar and found some good papers about the importance of protected areas (be sure I am not one of the authors of the following papers), so I encourage authors to use them:
** https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101871
** https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710956
** https://doi.org/10.3390/f13050740
2. I would like to see research limitations before section 5.

Author Response

This reviewer liked the manuscript but had two issues: adding limitations and adding references. We did both in the revised manuscript (limitations were added in conclusion. We thought both ideas make sense.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript was improved, especially the figures and figure captions and the whole discussion. Compared to the first revision run, minor changes are definitely necessary and significant. The changes to my "Minor comments" are not shown individually.

 

Introduction

Line 37: >>protected areas<< is encompassed by two different types of quotation marks (" & ') – please standardize

 

Line 37: believed

 

Materials and Methods

Line 71 ff: project (Why not: "Since the start of this baseline survey project in 2017, …"? – Is that what you mean?)

 

Line 77: …habitat types in each protected area. (Why not: In brief, this was primarily a qualitative assessment of the presence or absence of species by walking the park in linear transects that covered the different habitat types in each protected area.)

 

Results

Line 124: "[35xx]" ??

Line 149ff: The results are interesting regardless of nomenclature; we have identified some problems with the systematics (nomenclature) of orchids in this study and have embarked on a project to revise it (a master's student is working on, among other things, using DNA phylogeny analysis).

I advise to change the order of the sentences: Now: 1. (We recorded…), 2. (Among the…), 3. (the one just commented), 4. (The total…), 5. (There are…). New order: 1., 2., 4., 3., 5.

Line 161: That sentence is a stub.

Line 171ff: of conservation interest? ("crustaceans that are of interest")

 

Discussion

Line 199ff: For example, the process educated over 800 students and community members about environmental conservation issues and the value of nature (ecosystem services) and the potential of ecotourism.

Line 213: Palestine [24].

Lines 217/218: climate change

Line 219: The above results on plants are fascinating in several ways.

Line 220: plant habitats

Lines 221-223: The fauna has practically not been studied or has been studied very unsystematically. In order to be allowed to discuss fauna at all, the limitation must be disclosed: Both areas also had vernal pools in their buffer zones, but these two vernal pools differed greatly in flora and anecdotally co-observed fauna.

 

Lines 241/242: from both Israeli settlements and Palestinian communities

Line 268ff: That sentence contains several illogical concatenations, for example, "large mammals and other birds". Change: The lack of implementation of Palestinian laws protecting wildlife is likely to play an important role in the loss of large mammals and certain birds.

Lines 281-284: Because all of the confiscated land behind the wall had previously been used for grazing and growing winter crops, many pastoralists were forced to seek out other parts of the wadi, leading to overgrazing and a decline in natural vegetation cover.

Line 289: (Fig. 9). Other

Lines 289-292: Other large and medium-sized animals, such as the badger, are also prevented from moving freely across the WZ system.

Line 413ff: The work provides baseline data that can be used in promoting the benefits of nature to people, such as sustainable tourism [*] and other ecosystem services that promote community well-being while conserving nature.

   [*] – You can quote here: Zaplata, M.K.; Hecker, L.P. Convergence in Tourism and Divergence in Agriculture as a Perspective to Foster Sustainability All Round. Advances in Applied Sociology 2018, 8, 464–469. https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2018.85027

Line 415: as ecotourism

Line 417: in Iran [46, 47]

 

Figure 2: Because all parts of the figure are indexed with capital letters, the figure caption must also be indexed with capital letters. At the end there is a typo (". .").

Figure 3: Line 142-143: with different coverage of vegetation | Line 143: Typical | Line 144: Less | Line 145: A punctuation mark is missing.

Figure 5: F. Ophrys cf. adonidis.

 

Table 1: So far "Ophrys sphegodesadonitis". Do you mean the same species as in line 181? Then it must be uniformly "Ophrys cf. adonidis"!!

Author Response

Done as requested and much appreciation - all changes incorporated but note that for some reason the page numbers where the changes were made was not the same so I included the page numbers in brackets below.

Introduction

Line 37[36]: >>protected areas<< is encompassed by two different types of quotation marks (" & ') – please standardize [DONE]

Line 37[36]: believed [DONE]

Materials and Methods

Line 71 ff[69]: project (Why not: "Since the start of this baseline survey project in 2017, …"? – Is that what you mean?) [DONE]

Line 77 [73]: …habitat types in each protected area. (Why not: In brief, this was primarily a qualitative assessment of the presence or absence of species by walking the park in linear transects that covered the different habitat types in each protected area.) [DONE]

Results

Line 124 [114]: "[35xx]" ?? [DONE]

Line 149ff [139]: The results are interesting regardless of nomenclature; we have identified some problems with the systematics (nomenclature) of orchids in this study and have embarked on a project to revise it (a master's student is working on, among other things, using DNA phylogeny analysis).

I advise to change the order of the sentences: Now: 1. (We recorded…), 2. (Among the…), 3. (the one just commented), 4. (The total…), 5. (There are…). New order: 1., 2., 4., 3., 5. [DONE]

Line 161 [145]: That sentence is a stub. [??][DONE]

Line 171ff [161]: of conservation interest? ("crustaceans that are of interest")[yes, DONE]

Discussion

Line 199ff [187]: For example, the process educated over 800 students and community members about environmental conservation issues and the value of nature (ecosystem services) and the potential of ecotourism. [DONE]

Line 213 [200]: Palestine [24]. [DONE]

Lines 217/218 [204/205]: climate change [DONE]

Line 219 [206]: The above results on plants are fascinating in several ways. [DONE]

Line 220 [207]: plant habitats [DONE]

Lines 221-223 [208-211]: The fauna has practically not been studied or has been studied very unsystematically. In order to be allowed to discuss fauna at all, the limitation must be disclosed: Both areas also had vernal pools in their buffer zones, but these two vernal pools differed greatly in flora and anecdotally co-observed fauna. [DONE]

Lines 241/242 [229-230]: from both Israeli settlements and Palestinian communities [DONE]

Line 268ff [247-249]: That sentence contains several illogical concatenations, for example, "large mammals and other birds". Change: The lack of implementation of Palestinian laws protecting wildlife is likely to play an important role in the loss of large mammals and certain birds. [DONE]

Lines 281-284 [261-264]: Because all of the confiscated land behind the wall had previously been used for grazing and growing winter crops, many pastoralists were forced to seek out other parts of the wadi, leading to overgrazing and a decline in natural vegetation cover. [DONE]

Line 289 [266]: (Fig. 9). Other[DONE]

Lines 289-292 [264-265]: Other large and medium-sized animals, such as the badger, are also prevented from moving freely across the WZ system. [DONE]

Line 413ff [330]: The work provides baseline data that can be used in promoting the benefits of nature to people, such as sustainable tourism [*] and other ecosystem services that promote community well-being while conserving nature.  [*] – You can quote here: Zaplata, M.K.; Hecker, L.P. Convergence in Tourism and Divergence in Agriculture as a Perspective to Foster Sustainability All Round. Advances in Applied Sociology 2018, 8, 464–469. https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2018.85027 [DONE]

Line 415 [330]: as ecotourism

Line 417 [333]: in Iran [46, 47] [DONE, [now 47, 48 by adding reference above]

Figure 2: Because all parts of the figure are indexed with capital letters, the figure caption must also be indexed with capital letters. At the end there is a typo (". ."). [DONE]

Figure 3: Line 142-143 [131-132]: with different coverage of vegetation | Line 143 [132]: Typical | Line 144 [133]: Less | Line 145 [134]: A punctuation mark is missing. [DONE]

Figure 5: F. Ophrys cf. adonidis. [DONE]

Table 1: So far "Ophrys sphegodesadonitis". Do you mean the same species as in line 181? Then it must be uniformly "Ophrys cf. adonidis"!! [yes fixed]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx